The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-15

I
that the gorgons, hydras and chimeras dire
which had appeared in all manner of forms in
the Senate chamber were, some OF them. Co turn
out to be realize did not believe any of them
would-Congress might be safely trusted with
remedying the evil. If it should turn out that
the foreign trade Of Boston was, in some way.
injured, or hampered. or diminished, or crippled
by the effect of this bill, who would be more
ready than the Senate to rectify the troubled
But the same kind of forebodings had always ap-
peared whenever, in this or any country, the
legislative powers had been appealed to to re-
duce admitted evils as applied to corporations.
Some years ago, when the Legislature of Iowa
passed the first granger act, the direst calamties
had been predicted of it. but none of them had
come to pass. On the contrary the railroads of
that State had prospered more than ever before, |
and he believed that when the great railroad |
system of the United States found itself COM
PEELED to submit to this legislation it would turn
out to be for its benefit as we'll as for the benefit
of the whole people.
Mr.. Aldrich argued against the fourth section |
of the bill, and he reminded Mr.. Edmuuds that |
the Iowa granger law had been repealed He |
expressed his profound conviction that if the |
fourth section were enacted into law 1t would |
prove disastrous to the great interests of the |
country. He believed it to be reactionary in |
character and revolutionary in all sound princi |
Piles, and its rigid enforcement would demoralize
and cripple both internal and external COM |
merce. He argued that while the section did not
mean a uniform rate per ten per mile 1t did |
mean uniform rate per tor per station. The
fourth section would work a distinct reversal Of
that policy under which great communities west
of the Mississippi had grown up. Its effect had
never been more clearly or cogently presented
than in an argument made before the House
committee on commerce, Jan. 20. $780, by a
gentleman now Senator from Iowa Mr.. Will
son], extracts from which he read. The same
reasons that then existed against the short and
long haul provision. and which forcibly
| presented by MIR. Wilson, existed to-day just as
| strongly and forcihly.
! Mr. Morrill, said he had reached conclusion
that it was his duty to vote to recommt the bill.
He was satisfied that the effect OF the fourth sec
| ton would be to increase the rates of freight for
! long haus, and possibly those for short hauls
also. 1t would not require a very large percent
| age to turn the balance against the United
| States, and If that should occur. it would de-
range not only the business of the country, but
| the gold and silver currency of the country
| Mr.. Wilson, referring TO his argument before
| House committee quoted by Mr. Adrich said
| that he had changed his views somewhat since
| then. He had made adefnite study Of the Ques-
| ton since he had come to the Senate. and he had
| found iniquites in the practice of the railroad
companies sufficient to induce him to vote for
| the conference report Under the present ad-
ministration of the railroad system the people of
| Iowa were to-day practically without any such
| thing as low rate on long haul The farmers
of Iowa were to day, and had been since the rail
road companies induced the change of the first
transportation act compelled to pay local rates
| to Chicago
Mr. Morrill-As understand this bill. it does
not interfere at all with the railroads in the sew
| eral States.
MIR. Wilson, am only giving that as an ex-
ample of the iniquitous conduct of the railroad
companies.
Mr. Morrill-That is not remedied by this bill
Mr.. Wilson-No, but / hope that the people of
Iowa will follow this bill with supplementary
action in reference to transportation within the
State. have concluded, q Senator. to give
my vote for measure which believe will tend
in the direction of justice.
Mr.. Morrill, called attention to ne provision of
the bill which would affect the Grand Trunk
line, of Canada.
Mr.. Culom explained what the effect of the
| provision would be.
Mr.. Sewell inquired whether that would con-
, stitute an abrogation of the treaty of Washing
| ton.
Mr.. Cullom did not understand it His i'm
preston was tat the treaty of Washington had
been abrogated for some time. If it were not so,
! this was mere police regulation. The United
) States had right to require compliance with it;
and IL a foreign company did not comply with it,
. the penalty would attach.
: Mr.. Edmunds stated that the thlrtieth article
Of the treaty Of Washington, which seemed to be
the principal one in this connection. had been
q terminated on the LIST of July, 1885, and was no
q | longer in force. There ground whatever
2 for the pretension that among the other evils
that would happen, any difficulty would arise in
!. | regard to contravening existing treaty regula
. tons with Great Britain.
Mr.. ingalls, said the debase in tho Senate or
the fourth section in the original bill turned or
Q the idea that the provision applied to termina
r | points The fourth section, as reported by the
o conference committee, did not mean that I,
% meant the application of the short and long hau
IS principle to every single mile of road between
l. terminal points and to every pound of freigh
e carried. 1t meant local rates for every pound o
W freight carried the roads. It meant thu
J. abolition of the whole system of cheap lonl
l. haus under which distances had beef
l. equalized and the country shrunl
IS up to spans breadth, so that
| t1u fhn u1o1 Iva -, I'll,
d Dakota was put on the same footing and condi
tons, SO far the results of his labor were con
'. cerned. as the man who lived on the seaboard
J. 1t was proposed now to abolish all that and L
IS declare that hereafter every pound of freigh
If that moved on these railroads shall pay it's equa
o proportonate share Of frei2ht-monev for ever,
ot mile over which it passed. This was bill t
It regulate commerce, not to wreck, ruin and de
ic stroy it. Its purpose was humane and benef
70 cent and was in the interest of the producers o
10 the country. The section against pooling woul
r not prevent benehcent cooperation between
II railroads in healthy condition. They woul
- have right to unite for any purpose they nigh
see IT. But it notification to those VIII
a were duplicating railroad lines that that process
mns STOP II. was oonm matter Of th. mp0
% should stop. He knew of thousands O
n miles of railroad whose owners would b
e. better off If the rails were sold for old iron, th
is There were other matters in the bill more fata
" ~ defective than the fourth and fifth section,
n He regretted that he had got to vote for the bill
Of and he thought there a good many othe
al Senators in the same condition. It was bi
Of which practically nobody wanted. but whic
Dr. everybody intended to vote for llaughter];
it was bill which nobody was satisfied with. bu
to which every body intended to accept It was
70 bill as to the meaning of which nobody agreed
Is but which everybody said ought to pas
TO Laughter.l As he had already given suficier
to reasons why he would support the bill, he woul
Is | now yield to q motion to recommit it.
Mr. Sy,np air hat ho al in I'd
1t the bill as the Senator from Kansas had 9,
e. pressed himself. he could be brought, in de
t. erence to any clamor or to any consideration. I
ID support it. If the construction which that Sci